An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Hudson: "The easiest way to stop U.S. military adventurism is to restore gold and free the world from having to use a militarized U.S. Treasury-bill standard as their monetary base."
In the interview, Hudson retells what is often an overlooked but instructive history of US intelligence.
In the 40s and 50s analysts who knew anything about China were weeded out. Knowing about your subject was suspect, a sign of something sinister.
In the 60s, 70s and 80s analysts who knew anything about Russia were also weeded out.
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, analysts who knew anything about Iraq and the wider Arab world were weeded out because facts would interfere with the invasion.
I think Chalmers Johnson has said something similar. Presumably that is why US intelligence always ends up looking ridiculous time and again. Its institutions are set up to jettison intelligent analysts who know their subject and replace them with ideologues.
Matt, it's unclear whether Michael Hudson was advocating going back to gold or just explaining that it would be the easiest way to break the current arrangement and the encirclement.
If the former, well, what can you say? If the latter, he may have a point, theoretically speaking. Otherwise, if you are a country in the US crosshairs how do you stop the great imperial military machine? Wait for the US public to do something about it? By the time the US public wakes up, it may be too late, and even if it does wake up to what is a waking nightmare, it's not at all certain how far it can check or recede the machine.
" But the U.S. stance is to grab everything, not share. This selfishness is what is most self-defeating ultimately."
So when the deals are structured as royalties and the prices go up IN USD TERMS and THEN the foreigners renege, ie their indignation is actuated via the price in USD TERMS, that is because the US is "trying to grab everything"????
John in Empires you impose a poll tax on the vassals in your own state currency, the payment of the poll tax is primarily an act that exhibits subjection to the authority embodied in the head nation...
That is not being done today: so NO US "empire"...
Today we have a libertarian/barbarian system manifested in global mercantilism so-called "free markets" "free trade" "free this" "free that" "free blah, blah, blah"... anything with "free" in it... its a libertarian utopia...
US govt/military is often seen (but not exclusively, ie GWOT today) supporting/securing these libertarian mercantilist arrangements... US is not an "empire"...
Matt, if not an empire, how about a "global campaign of extreme violence and economic warfare meted out to the recalcitrant"? Or perhaps global dominance? Sounds a little imperial!
Even then, that doesn't really describe US actions. It isn't in the business of opening up and dominating markets as some sort of glorious exercise in free ------ (fill in the blanks) for the sake of ideology. Naturally, it does it to further its own interests.
Tributes take various forms and there is no greater tribute than corrupt dependant governments taking orders from Washington. The fantasists at Foggy Bottom dream of recreating a British Empire, not realising their post-1945 creation is a far greater achievement. It's lasted for more than seventy years, although there are signs that it may now be coming to an end. The best part of a century is a damn fine run, and it would have continued had it not been for the neoconservative buffoons who somehow made it to positions of power. If you want an empire, let liberals run it.
You give the libertarian thought (as much as it can be called thought) too much credit. After all, the liberals (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, etc) were the architects of US global dominance, and they have little in common with libertarian thinking. The barbarians Clinton and Obama have been decent enough CEOs of US Inc. The more savage barbarians, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc, were so incompetent that they near singlehandedly destroyed US power. Indeed, they left the US in such a shambles, a black man made it into the Oval Office.
John in Empires you impose a poll tax on the vassals in your own state currency, the payment of the poll tax is primarily an act that exhibits subjection to the authority embodied in the head nation...
That is not being done today: so NO US "empire"...
Matt, this is exactly the point but the ROW doesn't agree that this is not happening. They see it as the extraordinary privilege of dollar dominance that allows the US to twist arms and if that doesn't to it to break legs to extract rent.
Whatever one thinks of the merits of this view. it is becoming predominant in the ROW, and the ROW is out to take the US down . Even the people of France and Germany are seeing this. America's staunch allies now are the UK and Poland, and of course the oligarchs backed up by the US funded militaries of other vassals.
This is specifically what the new trade agreements are designed to do, for instance, from a geopolitical and geostrategic point of vies. America write the rule, so a country like China can't. Obama laid it right on the table. Does anyone think that China and the ROW didn't notice, or is OK with that. It's throwing down the gauntlet.
Hudson: "The easiest way to stop U.S. military adventurism is to restore gold and free the world from having to use a militarized U.S. Treasury-bill standard as their monetary base."
There is good reason to think that this the Russian and Chinese plan since between them they have enormous gold reserves still in the ground and are working on improving mining technology.
Whatever, their strategy definitely involves attacking the USD, which account for about 80% of transactions at present.
Very fine piece: it describes the dynamic perfectly. What I find worrying about such analyses is that they, almost unavoidably, omit the environmental limits that the US, China and Russia (and everyone else) are facing. For instance, China is working closely with experienced international partners, such as Canada and Australia, on finding ways to improve its dryland farming, but it is not clear that even China's advanced genetics industries are going to be able to keep up with the effects of climate change; and we all are aware of the terrible fires Russia had a few years ago and drought in California. There is so much uncertainty around such effects that it is not clear that the accurately described situation given above can continue for very long. So policies of mutual benefit may be forced on all participants.
Even the UK is starting to break ranks! The UK disobeyed a direct order from Washington not to join the China-led AIIB. I never thought I'd see a British government, led by a Tory PM to boot, disobey the master in Washington. Things are looking bad when the UK - a pathetic, grovelling country with no self-respect - starts being less pathetic, less grovelling and finding a modicum of self-respect. It would have been nice if it wasn't because of money, but small steps lead to...who knows?...maybe more self-respect...maybe, I shudder to say it, an independent foreign policy!
If Russia and China are gearing up to take down the dollar, it's either gonna be nasty or drawn out. Let's hope it'll be the drawn out scenario you've propounded elsewhere, allowing for a peaceful transition. But for the life of me, I can't see the US allowing this to happen without it turning very nasty. Confusco-fascists, anyone? The Tibetans? The benighted Chechens? "Daisy Cutters for Pussy Riot", now there's a ringing cry from the laptop bombardiers.
Right, John, there's hundreds of trillions on the table and the question is who is going to control globalization. The US elite is firmly committed politically, economically, and militarily to maintain that control, "whatever it takes." Collision course.
Right, Pearce. My view for some time is that as the vise of climate change tightens, the game is going to change drastically in ways that are difficult to foresee. The German military was the first to declare publicly that this is the greatest strategic challenge and the Pentagon followed.
Now we see evidence that the effects of climate change are occurring more quickly than formerly estimated. At the same time, the world is becoming more unstable politically and economically.
It's probably a reason that elites are into short term thinking and grabbing what they can now while they can.
It seems that the only way out might be something like what Keynes originally proposed (although it need not necessarily be fixed in terms of Gold):
"an International Clearing Union, based on international bank money, called (let us say) bancor, fixed (but not unalterably) in terms of gold and accepted as the equivalent of gold by the British Commonwealth and the United States and all members of the Union for the purpose of settling international balances.” [Include the BRICS]
Pearce: "So policies of mutual benefit may be forced on all participants."
I hope so, but I fear it'll be a mad scramble. These people are not rational (the neoconservatives are from a different dimension from a different universe) and the word "mutual" is not part of their vocabulary.
Meanwhile, the Blairites in the UK make the US neocons look positively pacific and sagacious. Thank Christ the UK is such a small military country, otherwise the Blairites would have waged war on every country, even friendly allies, and put all life forms, from plankton to humans, under the whip. There is no lower form of being than the Blairites, surpassing even those aliens from a different dimension known as neoconservatives.
Don't let anyone get you down, Matt. We know that the US is always good, it has everyone's best interests at heart. Its corporations work always for the common good, and it strives mightily, in cooperation with the equally benevolent US gov't for world prosperity and peace. The US is exceptional, the indispensable country. Everyone else knows this, but they are jealous. Our some 1,000 military bases? Our military budget bigger than all other countries combined? Our continual aggressions abroad since the beginning of the nation? It's not "imperialism!" We are just misunderstood.We are spreading our superior "culture" and way of life. Why don't people get it?
Matt, the last two John's are not me (the English John Adams)! I'm going to have to fiddle with my account so my full name comes up to avoid confusion.
20 comments:
Tom, you haven't added a link. Is it the following? http://thesaker.is/the-saker-interviews-michael-hudson/
Hudson: "The easiest way to stop U.S. military adventurism is to restore gold and free the world from having to use a militarized U.S. Treasury-bill standard as their monetary base."
LOL!!!!
In the interview, Hudson retells what is often an overlooked but instructive history of US intelligence.
In the 40s and 50s analysts who knew anything about China were weeded out. Knowing about your subject was suspect, a sign of something sinister.
In the 60s, 70s and 80s analysts who knew anything about Russia were also weeded out.
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, analysts who knew anything about Iraq and the wider Arab world were weeded out because facts would interfere with the invasion.
I think Chalmers Johnson has said something similar. Presumably that is why US intelligence always ends up looking ridiculous time and again. Its institutions are set up to jettison intelligent analysts who know their subject and replace them with ideologues.
Hudson: "but the U.S. withdrawal probably will not be a pretty sight, nor will the collapse of its financial system."
LOL!!!!!
Matt, it's unclear whether Michael Hudson was advocating going back to gold or just explaining that it would be the easiest way to break the current arrangement and the encirclement.
If the former, well, what can you say? If the latter, he may have a point, theoretically speaking. Otherwise, if you are a country in the US crosshairs how do you stop the great imperial military machine? Wait for the US public to do something about it? By the time the US public wakes up, it may be too late, and even if it does wake up to what is a waking nightmare, it's not at all certain how far it can check or recede the machine.
" But the U.S. stance is to grab everything, not share. This selfishness is what is most self-defeating ultimately."
So when the deals are structured as royalties and the prices go up IN USD TERMS and THEN the foreigners renege, ie their indignation is actuated via the price in USD TERMS, that is because the US is "trying to grab everything"????
Russia: $13 nat gas; renege on Ukraine 15% royalty pipeline deal...
Venezuela: $140 crude; renege on 25% royalty E&P deal...
ETC....
The reneges were because "the US is trying to grab everything"???? When by definition royalty deals are structured as % of real product ????
D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L
John in Empires you impose a poll tax on the vassals in your own state currency, the payment of the poll tax is primarily an act that exhibits subjection to the authority embodied in the head nation...
That is not being done today: so NO US "empire"...
Today we have a libertarian/barbarian system manifested in global mercantilism so-called "free markets" "free trade" "free this" "free that" "free blah, blah, blah"... anything with "free" in it... its a libertarian utopia...
US govt/military is often seen (but not exclusively, ie GWOT today) supporting/securing these libertarian mercantilist arrangements... US is not an "empire"...
rsp,
Matt, if not an empire, how about a "global campaign of extreme violence and economic warfare meted out to the recalcitrant"? Or perhaps global dominance? Sounds a little imperial!
Even then, that doesn't really describe US actions. It isn't in the business of opening up and dominating markets as some sort of glorious exercise in free ------ (fill in the blanks) for the sake of ideology. Naturally, it does it to further its own interests.
Tributes take various forms and there is no greater tribute than corrupt dependant governments taking orders from Washington. The fantasists at Foggy Bottom dream of recreating a British Empire, not realising their post-1945 creation is a far greater achievement. It's lasted for more than seventy years, although there are signs that it may now be coming to an end. The best part of a century is a damn fine run, and it would have continued had it not been for the neoconservative buffoons who somehow made it to positions of power. If you want an empire, let liberals run it.
You give the libertarian thought (as much as it can be called thought) too much credit. After all, the liberals (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, etc) were the architects of US global dominance, and they have little in common with libertarian thinking. The barbarians Clinton and Obama have been decent enough CEOs of US Inc. The more savage barbarians, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc, were so incompetent that they near singlehandedly destroyed US power. Indeed, they left the US in such a shambles, a black man made it into the Oval Office.
Thanks, John. Link fixed.
John in Empires you impose a poll tax on the vassals in your own state currency, the payment of the poll tax is primarily an act that exhibits subjection to the authority embodied in the head nation...
That is not being done today: so NO US "empire"...
Matt, this is exactly the point but the ROW doesn't agree that this is not happening. They see it as the extraordinary privilege of dollar dominance that allows the US to twist arms and if that doesn't to it to break legs to extract rent.
Whatever one thinks of the merits of this view. it is becoming predominant in the ROW, and the ROW is out to take the US down . Even the people of France and Germany are seeing this. America's staunch allies now are the UK and Poland, and of course the oligarchs backed up by the US funded militaries of other vassals.
This is specifically what the new trade agreements are designed to do, for instance, from a geopolitical and geostrategic point of vies. America write the rule, so a country like China can't. Obama laid it right on the table. Does anyone think that China and the ROW didn't notice, or is OK with that. It's throwing down the gauntlet.
Hudson: "The easiest way to stop U.S. military adventurism is to restore gold and free the world from having to use a militarized U.S. Treasury-bill standard as their monetary base."
There is good reason to think that this the Russian and Chinese plan since between them they have enormous gold reserves still in the ground and are working on improving mining technology.
Whatever, their strategy definitely involves attacking the USD, which account for about 80% of transactions at present.
Very fine piece: it describes the dynamic perfectly. What I find worrying about such analyses is that they, almost unavoidably, omit the environmental limits that the US, China and Russia (and everyone else) are facing. For instance, China is working closely with experienced international partners, such as Canada and Australia, on finding ways to improve its dryland farming, but it is not clear that even China's advanced genetics industries are going to be able to keep up with the effects of climate change; and we all are aware of the terrible fires Russia had a few years ago and drought in California. There is so much uncertainty around such effects that it is not clear that the accurately described situation given above can continue for very long. So policies of mutual benefit may be forced on all participants.
Tom: America's staunch allies now are the UK..."
Even the UK is starting to break ranks! The UK disobeyed a direct order from Washington not to join the China-led AIIB. I never thought I'd see a British government, led by a Tory PM to boot, disobey the master in Washington. Things are looking bad when the UK - a pathetic, grovelling country with no self-respect - starts being less pathetic, less grovelling and finding a modicum of self-respect. It would have been nice if it wasn't because of money, but small steps lead to...who knows?...maybe more self-respect...maybe, I shudder to say it, an independent foreign policy!
If Russia and China are gearing up to take down the dollar, it's either gonna be nasty or drawn out. Let's hope it'll be the drawn out scenario you've propounded elsewhere, allowing for a peaceful transition. But for the life of me, I can't see the US allowing this to happen without it turning very nasty. Confusco-fascists, anyone? The Tibetans? The benighted Chechens? "Daisy Cutters for Pussy Riot", now there's a ringing cry from the laptop bombardiers.
Right, John, there's hundreds of trillions on the table and the question is who is going to control globalization. The US elite is firmly committed politically, economically, and militarily to maintain that control, "whatever it takes." Collision course.
Right, Pearce. My view for some time is that as the vise of climate change tightens, the game is going to change drastically in ways that are difficult to foresee. The German military was the first to declare publicly that this is the greatest strategic challenge and the Pentagon followed.
Now we see evidence that the effects of climate change are occurring more quickly than formerly estimated. At the same time, the world is becoming more unstable politically and economically.
It's probably a reason that elites are into short term thinking and grabbing what they can now while they can.
It seems that the only way out might be something like what Keynes originally proposed (although it need not necessarily be fixed in terms of Gold):
"an International Clearing Union, based on international bank money, called (let us say) bancor, fixed (but not unalterably) in terms of gold and accepted as the equivalent of gold by the British Commonwealth and the United States and all members of the Union for the purpose of settling international balances.” [Include the BRICS]
Pearce: "So policies of mutual benefit may be forced on all participants."
I hope so, but I fear it'll be a mad scramble. These people are not rational (the neoconservatives are from a different dimension from a different universe) and the word "mutual" is not part of their vocabulary.
Meanwhile, the Blairites in the UK make the US neocons look positively pacific and sagacious. Thank Christ the UK is such a small military country, otherwise the Blairites would have waged war on every country, even friendly allies, and put all life forms, from plankton to humans, under the whip. There is no lower form of being than the Blairites, surpassing even those aliens from a different dimension known as neoconservatives.
Don't let anyone get you down, Matt. We know that the US is always good, it has everyone's best interests at heart. Its corporations work always for the common good, and it strives mightily, in cooperation with the equally benevolent US gov't for world prosperity and peace. The US is exceptional, the indispensable country. Everyone else knows this, but they are jealous. Our some 1,000 military bases? Our military budget bigger than all other countries combined? Our continual aggressions abroad since the beginning of the nation? It's not "imperialism!" We are just misunderstood.We are spreading our superior "culture" and way of life. Why don't people get it?
Should be "they strive..."
Matt, the last two John's are not me (the English John Adams)! I'm going to have to fiddle with my account so my full name comes up to avoid confusion.
Post a Comment